Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0): Justification, Development, and Possible Applications of a Novel Multidimensional Assessment

  1. Bernard Austin Kigunda Muriithi
  2. Milan Bimali

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Occupational resilience (OR) is an emerging construct defined as the degree of persistence in any specified activity. Given that persistence in activities is the key determinant of both the manner and extent to which activities influence health, OR is a promising novel construct. However, there are currently no validated OR measures, making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to apply the construct. Methods: Drawing from previously published qualitative research and established theories on activity performance, the Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0) was developed and tested with graduate occupational therapy students. Subsequently, six expert clinicians evaluated the ORM using an anonymous online survey. Results: Participants determined that ORM 1.0 demonstrates validity for the construct it assesses. They also suggest that ORM 1.0 is clinically relevant and a unique evaluation instrument. Discussion: The ORM 1.0 instrument comprises 20 items, which produce an aggregate score ranging from 20 to 100, along with four subtest scores corresponding to the variables History, Experience, Benefits, and Adaptation. Subtest scores facilitate the identification of variables that exert a more pronounced impact on the overall ORM 1.0 score, allowing ORM measurements to inform intervention strategies in clinical practice. ORM scores have potential for application in predicting health outcomes in epidemiological studies. Although ORM 1.0 may need further refinement, it has considerable potential to contribute significantly to advances in clinical practice and scientific research in a unique way.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17904849.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate The study has strong theoretical grounding and connection to existing constructs but the sample size for validation is very small (n=6). They can add rationale or attempt wider validation.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly * They should expand comparison with existing tools * Also highlight what ORM measures that others don't. * Include roadmap for large-scale validation studies (test-retest reliability, construct validity etc0
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely It highlights and proffers high potential for occupational therapy and research
    Would it benefit from language editing? No It is clear and easy to understand, the instruments used are well explained
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes The writers should consider shortening background and improving flow for reader engagement.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17137093.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction effectively defined occupational Resilience (OR) and justified its relevance for health outcomes by highlighting the gaps and building a rationale for developing ORM 1.0. The objectives were stated clearly.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate The sample size (6 participants) is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings and reliance on descriptive statistics provided. Also, the tool was tested using students and expert clinicians, but it was not tested across the general population.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported The conclusions were within the scope of the study, and it is consistent with their survey responses.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear The Tables and Figures clearly convey the results.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Very clearly The study was logically sectioned. The citations were appropriate, and the narration was detailed. The authors also acknowledged the limitations and the need for further psychometric testing.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely It filled the gap that was identified, though the outcome was a basis for OR
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes Some of the sentences were lengthy and could have been shortened. Reading it too well, one might notice that there were some repetitions across the sections
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved Based on the issues we have highlighted (non-generalisation), the manuscript needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202507.0018.v1